Leaving aside the fact that tests may give false positives etc, IF 79% of those tested by the ONS were positive but asymptomatic is that not encouraging? Does it not suggest it is much more prevalent but not as serious as thought? What am I missing?
Either way, whatever the information that results from the testing is it will be useful in figuring out what is going on and what we should be doing so I am in favour of it.
Good thing is that a lot more people are likely to be immune and/or clearing the virus than we thought and IFR is lower (most sero IFRs coming in around 0.65). Also that level of immunity is building constantly.
Bad thing is that we don't know whether asymptomatic cases spread the virus. So when we're looking at things like rate of spread and track and trace, if asymptomatic cases do spread the virus and the level of asymptomatic is 79% then the track and trace program is not going to work given the level of infection in the community.
Just a word on how the UK have done this is excellent - testing blood donors (who would have been prevented from donating if they thought they'd had it) is great and better than any other sero study in any other country as it prevents skewing towards people who think they've had it and wanted to be tested for antibodies.
Where did you see that they are only testing blood donors? The section of the ONS bulletin where they talk about how they gathered the data doesn't say anything about the sample group being blood donors.
Thanks Raddy, seems to me that the good thing is more important than the bad thing which only affects our approach and not the actual seriousness of the virus.
Ultimately it is out there and if we’re all going to get it knowing it is more prevalent now and less serious is hopefully reassuring.
there seems to be serious doubt about the death stats
in care homes, the care staff are doing the cause of death!
and there are lots of examples of families who do not consider that the deceased had covid in a meaningful way (i.e. they didn't consider it part of the reason for their overall sickness and death) but the death is recorded as covid
I have never really understood why families care about that - I understand why they wouldn't want say suicide recorded when it wasn't suicide, or if they suspect foul play, but otherwise what do they care what cause of death is recorded as?
Guy they just care for accuracy. I know of someone with a relative with advanced dementia and no symptoms of covid but the care staff stuck covid down as cause of death as it means there's basically no further action needed from their end.
The care home death total is clearly a massive proportion of deaths and part of the reason other countries' death rates look comparably better is due to the fact they avoided that harvesting.
The government failed to protect those most at risk from this even though they knew the were the most at risk group. There needs to be accountability for this but the public seem to be paying the price for their failure.
0
0
One night (one night)
Ooooh! One night in heaven
When you touch me...
0
0
Leaving aside the fact that tests may give false positives etc, IF 79% of those tested by the ONS were positive but asymptomatic is that not encouraging? Does it not suggest it is much more prevalent but not as serious as thought? What am I missing?
0
0
Either way, whatever the information that results from the testing is it will be useful in figuring out what is going on and what we should be doing so I am in favour of it.
0
0
Official deaths divided by ONS infection number suggests a death rate of 0.7%.
0
0
It's a good thing and not a good thing.
Good thing is that a lot more people are likely to be immune and/or clearing the virus than we thought and IFR is lower (most sero IFRs coming in around 0.65). Also that level of immunity is building constantly.
Bad thing is that we don't know whether asymptomatic cases spread the virus. So when we're looking at things like rate of spread and track and trace, if asymptomatic cases do spread the virus and the level of asymptomatic is 79% then the track and trace program is not going to work given the level of infection in the community.
Just a word on how the UK have done this is excellent - testing blood donors (who would have been prevented from donating if they thought they'd had it) is great and better than any other sero study in any other country as it prevents skewing towards people who think they've had it and wanted to be tested for antibodies.
Tick for the UK health authorities.
0
0
Where did you see that they are only testing blood donors? The section of the ONS bulletin where they talk about how they gathered the data doesn't say anything about the sample group being blood donors.
0
0
Oh really? My bad - that's what I understood. Discard my last para.
0
0
Thanks Raddy, seems to me that the good thing is more important than the bad thing which only affects our approach and not the actual seriousness of the virus.
Ultimately it is out there and if we’re all going to get it knowing it is more prevalent now and less serious is hopefully reassuring.
0
0
there seems to be serious doubt about the death stats
in care homes, the care staff are doing the cause of death!
and there are lots of examples of families who do not consider that the deceased had covid in a meaningful way (i.e. they didn't consider it part of the reason for their overall sickness and death) but the death is recorded as covid
it is all a complete mess
0
0
50 must have died by now - time for the old people to find another cause of death and stop being so weak.
0
0
I have never really understood why families care about that - I understand why they wouldn't want say suicide recorded when it wasn't suicide, or if they suspect foul play, but otherwise what do they care what cause of death is recorded as?
0
0
Guy they just care for accuracy. I know of someone with a relative with advanced dementia and no symptoms of covid but the care staff stuck covid down as cause of death as it means there's basically no further action needed from their end.
0
0
What action would otherwise be needed, if they stuck down say "advanced dementia"?
0
0
also I thought only a doctor could certify cause of death?
0
0
The care home death total is clearly a massive proportion of deaths and part of the reason other countries' death rates look comparably better is due to the fact they avoided that harvesting.
The government failed to protect those most at risk from this even though they knew the were the most at risk group. There needs to be accountability for this but the public seem to be paying the price for their failure.
0
0
Patrick Vallence yesterday said under 7% of people are estimated to have had the virus. I expect he knows how to interpret data.
Join the discussion